New Jersey recently exposed a problem poised to change the national conversation about election administration. State officials disclosed a so-called processing error at the Motor Vehicle Commission that resulted in approximately 6,600 people who identified themselves as noncitizens registering to vote between June 2023 and June 2024.
The numbers are troubling, but they are not the most important part of the story. Those individuals reportedly did not falsely claim to be citizens. They told the government they were not U.S. citizens, yet they were registered anyway.
Election officials often assure the public that such incidents are isolated anomalies, clerical mistakes, or software glitches. One case, standing alone, may deserve that description.
But Virginia recently removed more than 6,500 voter registrations associated with declared noncitizens, while North Carolina is investigating nearly 1,600 registrations flagged by the federal SAVE system. Alabama, Iowa, and Ohio have reported similar findings, including documented voting histories among some noncitizen registrants.
At what point does a “glitch” become a systemic vulnerability?
A responsible election system should protect eligible citizens from erroneous removal while also identifying registrations that do not belong on the rolls. Those objectives are complementary, not contradictory.
This is not simply a matter of imperfect databases. Federal prosecutors have recently brought cases in Texas, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and New Jersey involving noncitizens who registered or voted unlawfully. In Texas, British citizen Ada Ngozi Otuka pleaded guilty after prosecutors said she voted in multiple elections over more than a decade despite never becoming a U.S. citizen.
The evidence is no longer hypothetical. Noncitizens do make it onto voter rolls, many have cast ballots, and election officials sometimes do not discover the problem until years later—if at all.
Removing ineligible registrations protects future elections, and prosecuting those who knowingly violate election law punishes offenders, but neither can retrieve an unlawful ballot after it has been counted and incorporated into a certified election result.
Every unlawful ballot counted dilutes the weight of ballots lawfully cast by eligible American citizens.
At the same time, voters themselves are demanding stronger safeguards. This November, voters in Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, and West Virginia will decide on measures explicitly reaffirming that voting is reserved for U.S. citizens. Those initiatives reflect growing public recognition that citizenship should be verified, not simply assumed.
States deserve credit for conducting citizenship audits and for removing ineligible registrations, all while protecting the rights of eligible citizens. Every audit to discover ineligible entries improves voter confidence in future elections. But the current push exposes a prior weakness: Noncitizen voters should never get on American voter rolls at all.
The SAVE America Act can shore up these weaknesses. Existing law already limits voting to U.S. citizens. Thus, the issue is not whether noncitizen voting is legal, but whether citizenship is verified before someone is added to the voter rolls. The SAVE America Act would move that safeguard to the beginning of the registration process rather than relying primarily on audits, database comparisons, and criminal investigations years later.
Reasonable people can debate the details of how that verification should work and how best to protect naturalized citizens from erroneous removal. But ensuring only citizens are able to vote should not be controversial.
Election officials should know whether an applicant is eligible before adding that person to the voter rolls, not years later after another audit, another prosecution, or another election “glitch.”
States are proving that voter-roll maintenance works because they are finding invalid registrations. They deserve credit for doing so.
But cleanup is not prevention.
The real measure of election integrity is not the number of post-hoc removals for ineligible registrations but whether such ineligible registrations are prevented in the first place.
The SAVE America Act offers the preventive answer: Citizenship verification before registration, rather than prosecution after an illegal ballot has already been cast.
Ken Cuccinelli is chairman of Heritage Action’s Election Transparency Initiative, which recently joined The Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action to strengthen and expand their election integrity work. ETI equips policymakers with rigorous research, legal analysis, and practical solutions to emerging challenges in election administration. Follow on X KenCuccinelli.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/New-Jersey-Gov.-Mikie-Sherrill.jpg360640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2026-08-14 15:34:302026-08-14 15:43:07Why Are Noncitizen Voters Only Found After They’re Registered?
On the median of an intersection near the Capitol building in Richmond, a well-dressed yet disheveled beggar is seen holding a sign: “Unemployed. Will Politic for Food.”
This is the fate awaiting whoever it was that thought it would be a good idea to send Gov. Abigail Spanberger to the 90th annual Galax Old Fiddlers Convention.
I’m not a high-paid political operative, but I know how to read a room. What were they thinking?
Thousands of attendees were there to simply hear music and spend a week at the “Gateway to the Blue Ridge.” Those people are the very people whose gun rights the governor is trying to take away. Those people are the ones who would have been hardest hit by all those sales tax increases she and the Democrat leadership in the General Assembly wanted to levy. Galax’s median household income is about 45% below the Virginia state average of $74,957.
We’ve seen at least 40 different videos of the crowd at the event booing the governor loudly, and they are only just starting to be re-posted by GOP and conservative bloggers. In a political party that is driven by public perception of across-the-board popularity, this is bad.
How bad? On a scale where Terry McAuliffe’s “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach” gaffe is a 10, this is most likely a 7. It’s not fatal, but it makes her goal of being nominated for president in 2028 a long shot. Maybe she’d settle for a return to Langley as CIA director? Or director of National Intelligence? The irony would be great—but lost on everyone but us.
Rest assured that political action committees aligned with her opponents will have digital ads flooding each state’s primary voters with that video, with the narration saying, “If they don’t like her in Virginia …” or words to that effect.
Sending Spanberger to Galax, where she received 31.7% of the vote in 2025, shows a failure of executive decision-making. She won 21.4% in Carroll County and 21.5% in Grayson County. It’s not exactly “Spanberger Country.” And that was before the gun grabs and proposed tax hikes. That’s before the electricity bills, with Appalachian Power asking the State Corporation Commission for a $61.4 million increase in base rates to cover rising system costs.
In her defense, you can say that she went there because she is the governor of all Virginians. But if you make your first seven months in office an unending succession of attempts to damage or defame the community’s way of life, after having driven out the furniture industry that it relied on, don’t expect them to invite you for barbecue. (That’s a noun, Madame Governor.)
I guess she can hold out hope that Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro gets caught not knowing what “wit’ or wit’out?” means when ordering a cheesesteak at Pat’s or Gino’s, or California Gov. Gavin Newsom brags to the black community about how low his test scores were. Oh, wait, that actually happened.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.
It seems like Abdulrahman Mohamed El Sayed is racking up a ton of endorsements after his win in the Michigan Democratic senatorial primary this week. Some of them, however, he might not be touting too loudly on his campaign page. This includes a fawning write-up in Ikhwan Online, an official media outlet of the Muslim Brotherhood, according to a report from Michigan-based online conservative outlet The Midwesterner.
The move comes after numerous groups raised questions about ties between El-Sayed’s campaign and Brotherhood-linked organizations. The Muslim Brotherhood, which originated in Egypt, is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States and a number of other countries.
On Wednesday, after El-Sayed’s narrow victory over U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens was made official, Ikhwan Online could scarcely maintain its jubilance (while giving a shoutout to “squad” member Rashida Tlaib for her own primary victory Tuesday). From a computer translation of the original Arabic text: The American doctor of Egyptian origin, Abdel Rahman “Abdoul” Al-Sayed, on Wednesday, snatched the Democratic Party’s candidacy card to compete for the Michigan state seat in the US Senate midterm elections, in a result described as a new setback for pro-occupation lobby groups, after surpassing Rep. Hailey Stevens, supported by the American Zionist Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
The competition took place between Al-Sayed, a former public health official known for his progressive positions in support of Palestinian rights, and Stevens, a member of the House of Representatives for four consecutive sessions, which is one of the most prominent pro-occupation figures within the Democratic Party. I don’t remember Haley Stevens being a prominent anything, much less a “prominent pro-occupation” voice, but I’m guessing anyone to the right of Rashida Tlaib qualifies thusly.
However, you have to give them credit for subtlety: “Abdul Rahman al-Sayyid conquers the Zionists and runs for the Senate,” the headline read.
It is also reported that El-Sayed’s father-in-law, Tayeb Jukaku, who was one of his campaign’s biggest donors, was also a leader in the Islamic Society of North America, an unindicted co-conspirator in a 2007 terrorist financing case.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/podcast-2659476_640.jpg360640Conservative Commandos Radio Show and AUN-TVhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngConservative Commandos Radio Show and AUN-TV2026-08-14 05:51:532026-08-14 06:05:07Abdulrahman Mohamed El Sayed LINKED to Ikhwan Online a Muslim Brotherhood, U.S.-Designated Terror Organization
Democrat Socialist and Islamo-Fasist Abdul El Sayed won the Democrat Primary for U.S. Senator from Michigan over an established Democrat incumbent by 1%.
When asked what kind of Democrat he welcomes his response was “Anyone who is against Fascism”. He and his ilk in the Democrat Socialists of America (DSA) have consistently and falsely called POTUS Trump a Fascist which is a total lie.
Sayed is not only an Islamist but is actually a Communist and POTUS Trump is a capitalist. Trump is not the autocratic, King like the leftist socialists like Sayed; Sanders; Omar, AOC, Mamdani and others of their ilk try to foster with the help of the legacy media.
So what are the differences in the terms socialism, fascism, capitalism and communism?
The following table clearly illustrates the difference between these four systems of governments and economies and dispels the lies of the left.
President Donald J. Trump and the policies of his Administration clearly fit the column labeled “Capitalism” whereas the leftists fit the other 3 columns especially those of “Socialism and Communism” but also some of “Fascism” as well…Since El Sayed and other muslims like Mamdani, Omar, Talib are also Islamists they are definitely supporters of the Red Green Alliance which is hell bent to destroy western civilization including the USA.
Following is a table that shows the differences between Capitalism, the system that has led to prosperity and equal opportunity for Americans and Socialism which is a failed system which eventually leads to even worse misery, e.g. Communism for countries which adopt it as their form of government.
Capitalism
Socialism
Ownership of Assets
Means of production owned by private individuals
Means of production owned by government or cooperatives
Income Equality
Income determined by free market forces
Income equally distributed according to need
Consumer Prices
Prices determined by supply and demand
Prices set by the government
Efficiency and Innovation
Free market competition encourages efficiency and innovation
Government-owned businesses have less incentive for efficiency and innovation
Healthcare
Healthcare provided by private sector
Healthcare provided free or subsidized by the government
Taxation
Taxes based on individual income
High taxes necessary to pay for public services
Following are several other links to good articles on the subjects of these different systems of government and economics. The second link which discusses all 4 systems is especially good.
The bottom line is that our forefathers’ knew what they were doing in declaring our independence and writing a Constitution including a Bill of Rights which limit our government from taking away our God given “natural rights”. These 10 rights are rights which socialist/communist states do not have including now most of western Europe at their own peril. Countries like the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Sweden, Spain, and others including Australia now oppress the rights of reedom of speech and assembly of their people allowing Islam to begin taking over. They have also disarmed their population thus removing the primary means of resisting tyranny by their own governments that we in the US enjoy with our 2nd Amendment. These counties will go the way of Communist China, N. Korea, Cuba, Russia and/or the 50 + Islamist nations enslaving their people if we don’t resist this Red Green Alliance which has formed with the Democrat Socialists of America being a primary vehicle for undermining our country, its Constitution and our Republic.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Socialism-vs-Fascism-vs-Communism-vs-Capitalism.jpg354640Royal A. Brown IIIhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRoyal A. Brown III2026-08-10 06:14:302026-08-11 06:45:50Socialism vs Fascism vs Communism vs Capitalism and the Big Lies of the Left
Judge for yourself but in my opinion these retired Generals, Admirals and other high ranking former members of Federal Government should have their Security Clearances lifted NOW (if they still have them) and should be investigated for what information they shared with Communist Chinese military officials.
It has been alleged that most received free transportation, lodging,meals, etc. while engaged in these collaborations.
Several retired U.S. flag officers, including four-star generals and admirals, have been reported to collaborate with Chinese military officials in closed-door meetings over the past decade. These interactions have raised concerns about the influence of the Chinese Communist Party on American military leadership.
Retired U.S. Flag Officers Collaborating with China
Numerous high-ranking retired military officials have engaged with Chinese counterparts.
Participants — Some of the most powerful retired officers, including former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have participated in these meetings.
Topics Discussed — Discussions have included critical issues such as Taiwan, the South China Sea, and cybersecurity.
Duration of Engagement — These interactions have reportedly spanned over a decade, indicating a long-term relationship.
Chinese Influence — The meetings were organized by a Chinese organization linked to military intelligence, raising concerns about potential influence.
Recent reports indicate that several retired U.S. flag officers, including high-ranking generals and admirals, have engaged in extensive dialogues with Chinese military influence groups over the past decade. This collaboration has raised concerns about the potential implications for U.S. national security and military integrity.
Overview of Collaborations
The involvement of retired U.S. military leaders with Chinese entities has significant implications.
Network Formation — The Chinese Communist Party has established a private network involving senior retired U.S. military officials, circumventing direct penetration of the Pentagon.
Long-term Engagement — Some retired officers participated in meetings with a Chinese organization linked to Beijing’s military intelligence for over ten years.
Public Endorsements — Over 120 retired generals and admirals publicly supported political figures, indicating their ongoing influence.
Concerns Raised — Investigations have highlighted the risks associated with these collaborations, suggesting they could undermine U.S. military strategies
Lloyd Austin’s (former US Secy of Defense) interactions with China have been primarily through communication rather than travel. Austin spoke with his Chinese counterpart in April 2024, marking a significant step in military dialogue.
Some of America’s most senior former military and national-security officials quietly traveled to Beijing to participate in a closed-door “Strategic Security and Stability Dialogue” supported by the China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF), an organization repeatedly identified by U.S. analysts and members of Congress as part of the Chinese Communist Party’s United Front influence apparatus.
The meeting was billed as a Track II dialogue, meaning unofficial and off the record. But Track II forums are not politically neutral. They are where Beijing cultivates elite Western figures who no longer hold office but still command credibility and converts their presence into political capital.
CUSEF’s role is central.
The foundation was created by former Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa, who also served as a vice chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, a core United Front body. For years, CUSEF has sponsored U.S.–China dialogues, trips, and exchanges that critics say consistently advance Beijing-friendly narratives under the language of “mutual understanding.”
This strategy is not subtle. CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping himself has described United Front work as “an important magic weapon for the success of the Party’s cause.” In other words, influence – not tanks or treaties – is how Beijing seeks to shape outcomes abroad.
That context matters when examining who showed up in Beijing.
The Chinese Communist Party didn’t need to penetrate the Pentagon. It built a private network around it, and stocked it with some of America’s most senior retired generals and admirals.
That’s the core finding in Natalie Winters’ new report on the Sanya Initiative, a decade-plus military dialogue funded by the China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF) and run in coordination with the China Association for International Friendly Contact (CAIFC). Congressional investigators have identified CAIFC as a front for the PLA’s former General Political Department, responsible for intelligence collection and “propaganda and perception management.” The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission specifically cited CAIFC’s role in Sanya.
Winters summarized the findings Tuesday on X:
The first delegation, named in CUSEF’s own 2008-2009 annual report, included retired Adm. William “Bill” Owens, former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Ronald Fogleman, former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Dennis Reimer, former Pacific Command chief Adm. Joseph Prueher, former Southern Command chief Gen. Charles Wilhelm and former Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. John Keane. By 2009, the combined American-Chinese delegation had traveled to Hawaii, Washington and New York, where they sat down with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, members of Congress and senior State Department officials.
The glossy brochures called it a peaceful exchange. What they left out was CAIFC’s actual mandate. Congressional investigators described the group as performing the “dual roles of intelligence collection and propaganda and perception management” as part of the CCP’s broader United Front system, an influence apparatus designed to cultivate foreign elites and neutralize opposition to Beijing’s objectives.
The warnings were public as early as 2011. Mark Stokes, a former Pentagon official and co-author of a landmark study on PLA political warfare, testified before the commission that the Chinese side’s intentions were spelled out in the initiative’s own first report:
“The Chinese side says we wish you would advocate these positions,” Stokes testified, adding that American editorials later appeared with a “stark similarity” to what the Chinese participants had pushed. Hearing co-chair Jeffrey L. Fiedler responded: “Sounds like it was a successful narrative that was placed.”
A 2013 investigation by John Garnaut found a striking imbalance in the initiative’s early deliverables. The American side had agreed to try to delay a Pentagon report on China’s military power until after Taiwan’s election, viewed the U.S. election cycle as an opportunity to shape military relations, and discussed writing opinion pieces to counter critical coverage of China’s military. Garnaut found no comparable list of commitments from the Chinese side. Shortly after those early Sanya meetings, Owens published opinion pieces urging Washington to treat China as a friend and end arms sales to Taiwan.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Generals-Admirals-Collaborating-with-Communist-China.jpg359640Royal A. Brown IIIhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRoyal A. Brown III2026-08-08 13:30:442026-08-08 13:35:30Retired U.S. Flag Offficers (Generals/Admirals) Traveling to and Collaborating with Communist China
Lars Møller recently published a piece on three farsighted people — the late Oriana Fallaci, Mark Steyn, and Douglas Murray — who understood and have written about the mortal threat to Western civilization from “the sons of Allah,” tens of millions of whom are now living in our midst. More. on his tribute to the three (and he might have added the names of Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Ibn Warraq to his list) and the alarm he now feels, because so few in the West have heeded them, can be found here:
The moral decline of the West is no longer a matter of speculation but a demographic, cultural, and spiritual fact, visible in collapsing birth rates, the erosion of civilizational confidence, and the supine accommodation of an ideology fundamentally hostile to the Enlightenment inheritance. Where once the West confronted Nazism and Bolshevism—two totalitarian waves that sought to remake humanity through terror and ideology—it now faces a third: Islamist totalitarianism, advancing not primarily through tanks or gulags, but through demographic momentum, elite cowardice, and the patient erosion of liberal norms.
In this darkening landscape, the voices of Oriana Fallaci, Mark Steyn, and Douglas Murray rate as lonely sentinels. Far from unreflective “Islamophobes,” as their detractors sneer, these thinkers form an intellectual continuum defending Western liberty against civilizational surrender. Their warnings, typically dismissed as “alarmist” in the complacent halls of Brussels or academia, grow more prescient with each passing year. To ignore them is to invite a future in which Europe—and by extension the West—becomes unrecognizable, its freedoms subordinated to a theocratic vision incompatible with individual rights.
Oriana Fallaci’s The Rage and the Pride (2001), written in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, remains a visceral cri de coeur. An accomplished journalist who had interviewed Ayatollah Khomeini, she possessed intimate knowledge of radical Islam’s face. She beheld in post-9/11 Europe not multicultural enrichment but a “reverse crusade”—a Muslim invasion facilitated by mass immigration, differential birth rates, and the craven multiculturalism of European elites. She adopted and popularized the term “Eurabia” from the writings of Bat Ye’or to describe the continent’s trajectory towards becoming an Islamic colony. For Fallaci, the threat was civilizational: Islam, in its political and expansionist form, sows “hatred in place of love,” subjugates women, stifles inquiry, and rejects the separation of mosque and state….
Mark Steyn, in America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It (2006), provided the demographic and strategic depth to Fallaci’s passion. His thesis is stark: Europe is dying of self-inflicted wounds—sub-replacement fertility, cultural self-loathing, and a welfare state that imports dependents rather than nurturing its own children. Muslim populations, with higher birth rates and assertive religious identities, fill the vacuum. Steyn distinguishes, as do his peers, between individual Muslims and the political ideology of Islamism, yet he refuses the comforting delusion that the two can be neatly separated when scriptural sources and historical patterns urge otherwise. His prediction of “Islamization” warned of a “fearless Muslim advance” met by “weak-kneed European elites.” The endgame, he foresaw, would be either submission or civil war, perhaps yielding neo-nationalist strongmen as desperate backlash….
Douglas Murray’s The Strange Death of Europe (2017) synthesizes and updates these analyses with empirical rigor and moral clarity. He documents how mass migration, particularly from Muslim-majority countries, combined with elite refusal to insist on assimilation, has produced parallel societies, grooming scandals, no-go zones in practice if not in euphemistic language, and rising extremism. An atheist himself, he examined Islamic texts and found them incompatible with the secular, pluralistic order that Europe claims to cherish.
Murray’s controversial statements—that conditions for Muslims in Europe should be made “harder across the board” to discourage further settlement and failed integration — stem not from gratuitous cruelty but from observed reality: tolerance extended unilaterally becomes suicide. Jihadism, he insists, “comes from Islam,” drawing on theology, history, and contemporary events from Bataclan to Cologne. Like Fallaci and Steyn, he deplores the West’s loss of identity. Europe, he argues, no longer believes that its own story is worth defending. This spiritual exhaustion invites conquest by those who believe fervently in theirs.
After such knowledge, what forgiveness? In the spirit of “Sursum Corda,” let’s consider the reasons for hope so as to dispel the gloom. In Europe, almost everywhere the anti-immigrant — or more exactly, anti-Muslim immigrant parties, are ahead in the polls. In Germany, Alice Weidel of the Alternative für Deutschland, in France, Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella of the National Rally, and Bruno Retailleau of Les Républicains, in Italy, Giorgia Meloni of Fratelli d’Italia, while in the UK, Rupert Lowe’s Restore Britain Party, not even a year old, is rapidly gaining support from those who have found Nigel Farage’s Reform Party not sufficiently adamant on the subject of ending Muslim migration.
It is the next decade or two that will determine Europe’s fate. Will it continue to welcome Muslim migrants or call a halt to increasing their presence? Will European states limit welfare benefits so that, as Bruno Retailleau has suggested, for the first five years of their presence, immigrants will not be eligible for any benefits? Will the peoples of Europe inform themselves sufficiently about the texts and teachings of Islam to rouse themselves, as if after a long sleep? How many will educate themselves in time about this menace, which turns out to be more dangerous than even Nazism and Bolshevism, for it has already burrowed into our societies, affecting our political life, our media, our impressionable young?
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Islamic-Threat-to-the-West-GR.jpg360640The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2026-08-08 06:07:402026-08-12 14:17:30The Islamic Threat to the West
Abdul El-Sayed is the Democrat Party’s candidate for the United States Senate from the state of Michigan, and he is just the latest on an ever-growing list of Democrat candidates who would deride Uncle Joe Stalin as a reactionary capitalist roader. The Democrat establishment is feeling the heat, but one of El-Sayed’s most fervent and prominent boosters, the fiendishly anti-American and antisemitic social media star Hasan Piker, is in no mood for reconciliation.
On the contrary: flush with El-Sayed’s victory, Piker is ready to move in for the kill and take over the Democrat Party, which is already a hollowed-out shell, for the authoritarians and oligarchs who claim they’re the champions of the common people. Piker insists that there will be no “mending bridges” with the establishment Democrats. Like Stalin rooting out the “rightists” (including many of the Bolsheviks who helped establish the Soviet Union and even some who helped Stalin gain absolute power) and sending them to their deaths, Piker wants the Democrat Old Guard to leave the arena, giving up the hollowed-out shell that is today’s Democrat Party and allowing the Marxists to gain full and official control.
Dearborn, Michigan – “Down with AIPAC,” the crowd chanted at a campaign rally for Democratic Senate hopeful Abdul El-Sayed in a suburb of Detroit.
AIPAC – the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — has become the main topic of conversation in the Democratic primary in Michigan, which analysts say could affect the party’s approach to Israel for years to come.
Michigan state legislator Alabas Farhat vowed at the rally in the Detroit suburb of Dearborn on Friday that voters would make the pro-Israel group “burn” millions of dollars by electing El-Sayed to the US Senate.
“The status quo has told us for a long time that we don’t have money for modern schools; we don’t have money for clean water to drink, for health care, for affordable housing,” Farhat told the rally.
“But when we call up money to go and bomb children in Gaza, to do an ethnic cleansing campaign in South Lebanon – this administration seems to find that money.”
Several speakers, including Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, also took to the stage but the name of El-Sayed’s opponent in Tuesday’s election, Congresswoman Haley Stevens, was hardly mentioned.
Instead, AIPAC – which is breaking records in campaign spending to defeat candidates critical of Israeli policies, such as El-Sayed — was repeatedly brought up, booed and denounced.
El-Sayed, a progressive epidemiologist and former public health official, is running against Stevens, a four-term Congress member, to replace retiring Democratic Senator Gary Peters. The winner will face former Congressman Mike Rogers, the likely Republican nominee, in November.
Michigan state legislator Alabas Farhat vowed at the rally in the Detroit suburb of Dearborn on Friday that voters would make the pro-Israel group “burn” millions of dollars by electing El-Sayed to the US Senate.
“The status quo has told us for a long time that we don’t have money for modern schools; we don’t have money for clean water to drink, for health care, for affordable housing,” Farhat told the rally.
“But when we call up money to go and bomb children in Gaza, to do an ethnic cleansing campaign in South Lebanon – this administration seems to find that money.”
Several speakers, including Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, also took to the stage but the name of El-Sayed’s opponent in Tuesday’s election, Congresswoman Haley Stevens, was hardly mentioned.
Instead, AIPAC — which is breaking records in campaign spending to defeat candidates critical of Israeli policies, such as El-Sayed — was repeatedly brought up, booed and denounced.
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
I am happy to be able to offer you a 5% discount on becoming a VIP member at PJ Media. Just enter the code SPENCER when you sign up here.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Hasan-Piker-speaking-at-a-rally-in-2026.jpg374640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2026-08-07 06:17:052026-08-07 10:32:01The Revolution Is On, Comrades: Hasan Piker Says No Reconciliation With Dem Establishment
Kyle Shideler, our Director and Senior Analyst for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights.
His testimony focused on one of the most significant intelligence breakthroughs in modern U.S. counterterrorism: the Holy Land Foundation trial.
Evidence introduced in that case showed that the Muslim Brotherhood has operated in the United States since the 1960s and created an extensive network of Hamas support organizations, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).
Shideler told Senator Cruz and the Subcommittee that the United States achieved an unparalleled intelligence coup, but then largely failed to act on what it had uncovered. He compared it to breaking Nazi Germany’s Enigma code, gaining access to enemy communications, and then never decoding another message.
Kyle then turned to a separate question: whether the Muslim Brotherhood has fundamentally changed since that evidence was uncovered. He concluded: “Those who claim that the Muslim Brotherhood has changed its spots should be required to prove it. The U.S. government has already proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, what the Brotherhood is.”
Thank you for following, sharing, and supporting the Center for Security Policy’s work. Your engagement helps us bring critical national security analysis to policymakers and the American people.
Director and Senior Analyst for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, Center for Security Policy
August 5, 2026
Before the Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Whitehouse, Distinguished Senators:
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this important topic.
Because our court system is built on certain fundamental principles—including trial by jury, the government’s burden of proof in criminal matters, and the right to confront one’s accusers—courts both civil and criminal have been at the center of revelations of great consequences to our republic and its national security.
Examples include the Chamber-Hiss case and its famous “Pumpkin Papers” exposing the role of the Communist Party of the United States in Soviet espionage, or the trials surrounding the 1957 Apalachin, New York raid, which convinced federal law enforcement of the existence of the American Mafia. To these we must add United States v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, prosecuted almost two decades ago, which exposed the existence and extensive reach of the Muslim Brotherhood in America since its arrival in 1962.1
The evidence submitted during that trial demonstrated that not only was the Muslim Brotherhood operating in America, but that the Brotherhood played a singularly important role in providing indoctrination, financing, and political protection for jihadist terror.
Founded in Egypt by Hassan Al-Banna in 1928, from its very beginning the Muslim Brotherhood operated as a clandestine organization, which engaged in the creation of public front groups, cultivated agents of influence, sought control over religious institutions, engaged in acts of political subversion, and created deniable sub-organizations devoted to terrorism, in pursuit of its ultimate goal, the overthrow of governments and the reestablishment of a worldwide caliphate operating under Islamic law, known as Sharia.2
It is worth recalling that the government demonstrated that the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, like all Brotherhood branches worldwide, created and funded Hamas support networks—known as Palestine Committees—at the direction of the International Muslim Brotherhood beginning in 1983.3
In 2018, the U.S. government designated the Hasm Movement and Revolution Brigade (Liwa Al-Thawra), two Brotherhood-created terror groups founded to fight the Egyptian government. So this policy of forming and spinning off terror groups has remained fundamental to who the Brotherhood is to the present day.
The most infamous Palestine Committee organization in the United States is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).4So significant was CAIR’s formation as an organ for political and media relations, its creation and bylaws received explicit approval by the Muslim Brotherhood leadership in Egypt.5
HLF documents, and related cases, reveal that at one time one in every four American mosques were under the influence of the Hamas-linked North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).vi Muslim Brotherhood members—including some later convicted of terrorism charges such as Sami Al-Arian7 and Abduraham Alamoudi8—regularly attempted to influence leaders of both American political parties. Organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood recruited and trained chaplains for American prisons and the American military.9 Brotherhood organizations operated on nearly every college campus in the United States, regularly recruiting young American Muslims and leading them to commit terrorist violence.10
The Brotherhood ran camps where individual members were trained to wage Jihad, and organized “special work,” the preferred Brotherhood euphemism for violence.11
In short, the issue of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood was and is not merely a counterterrorism issue, but also a systemic counterintelligence challenge, and even more broadly, a challenge to the fabric of the United States and its ability to seek assimilation and social cohesion.
The United States Government achieved an unparalleled intelligence coup, yet almost none of this information was put to substantive further use. HLF would be the last domestic Muslim Brotherhood charity designated by the U.S. Treasury Department.12
There were no further prosecutions for material support against American Muslim Brotherhood figures. It was the equivalent of cracking the Enigma code in 1939 and then never decoding another Nazi message.
In 2008, the U.S. government had in its possession the name and rank of most leading Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States.13I would encourage the senators to demand, in an appropriate classified setting, that U.S. intelligence deliver the same levels of insight into U.S. Brotherhood operations today.
Since 2009, the federal government’s disinterest in the challenge of the Muslim Brotherhood has largely been answered by private efforts. These have included educational efforts but also legislative and judicial responses. More than half a dozen state legislatures have passed resolutions condemning CAIR’s links to terrorism. Two states, Florida and Texas, have publicly declared the group as a terrorist organization. Some state attorneys general are currently pursuing investigations into Muslim Brotherhood-linked entities.
There have been efforts in federal court to enforce federal court judgments against elements of the Palestine Committee (Boim v. IAP, Boim v. AMP), as well as lawsuits seeking to expose the role of foreign funding in supporting CAIR (Saroya v. CAIR).
Unfortunately, in multiple examples, these Brotherhood-linked affiliates have successfully utilized a variety of lawfare tactics, including in some cases refusal to comply with legal discovery, in order to avoid exposure.
I would be remiss if I did not add the positive decision by the U.S. Treasury and U.S. State Department to designate the Lebanese, Egyptian, Jordanian, and Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood branches. The recent decision to designate the deputy secretary of the International Muslim Brotherhood is also a welcome development.
I will note, however, that an approach which treats Muslim Brotherhood branches as fundamentally independent is one based on expediency and runs counter to the available public evidence, both as presented in the HLF case and also as written in the Brotherhood’s by-laws openly stated as recently as 2011.14
Critics will claim that the data derived from the HLF case and related cases are decades old. This is true, but misleading. When studying clandestine networks, one must realize that they are established over many decades, as trained cadre move through positions of trust in the network’s various fronts. Such individuals are not easily replaced, and regularly reappear.15 A historic snapshot of such a network and the players in it, far from being irrelevant, is a crucial piece of the puzzle, prized by both intelligence practitioners and historians.
Consider, for example, Gaddour Saidi, who served on the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Executive Office in 1992, and served as Vice President of the American Libyan Council at the time that organization lobbied for U.S. intervention in the Libyan Civil War in 2011. Or Talal Sunbulli, a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Shura Council member in 1992, served as president of the Syrian American Council, which played an outsized role in U.S. policy as it related to supporting the Syrian rebels. Or Hani Saqr, listed as Masul (chief) of East America, who served as president of the Egyptian Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in 2013.
And while some Muslim Brotherhood leaders have passed on, their roles may be taken up by their children or grandchildren, as in the case of late seminal Brotherhood figures Muhammad Al-Hanooti,16 Jamal Barzinji17and Taha Jabir Al-Alwani, and the front organizations they built and developed continue to operate.18
In conclusion, those who insist that the Brotherhood is a leopard that has somehow changed its spots are the ones who should be required to meet the burden of proof.
Because the U.S. government has already proved what the Muslim Brotherhood is, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Footnotes
1 While individual Muslim Brothers operating in the United States prior to this date, in the 1960s a North American Brotherhood structure was developed, centered around the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood Association (MSA), which served as a front for Muslim Brotherhood organizing and recruited cadre from which future Brotherhood fronts would be created. Zeid Al-Noman, “Ikhwan in America,” n.d., pp. 2–4, entered into evidence as Government Exhibit “Elbarasse Search 2,” U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development et al., accessed from Ikhwan in America: The Oral History of the Muslim Brotherhood in its own words (Center for Security Policy Press, 2016), https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Ikhwan_in_America_20160418.pdf
2 For more on the early formation of the Muslim Brotherhood, see Richard P. Mitchell, The Society of the Muslim Brothers (Oxford University Press, 1969). Particularly worthy of note is the formation of the “secret apparatus” in 1942 (p. 30), and its participation in organizing its “Battalions” to fight against Israel in the Palestine War in 1948 (p. 57).
3 “With the growth of the blessed Intifada and the spread of the spirit of Jihad amidst the children of Palestine and the nation, it became incumbent upon the remainder of the Ikhwan branches to play a role in attributing this Intifada and this Islamic action to Palestine. Therefore, a resolution was issued by the Guidance Office and the Shura Council of the International Movement to form ‘Palestine Committees’ in all the Arab, the Islamic and the Western nations whose job is to make the Palestinian cause victorious and to support it with what it needs of media, money, men and all of that.” Islamic Action for Palestine: An Internal Memo (October 1992), p. 11, entered into evidence as Government Exhibit “Elbarasse Search 5,” U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development et al.
4 “Meeting Agenda of the Palestine Committee 7/30/1994” pg. 1, Entered into evidence as Government Exhibit “Elbarasse Search 19” U.S. V. HLF et al.
5 FD-302 Interview with [Redacted] under Pro er agreement,” January 6th, 2005, pg. 6 accessed at Investigative Project on Terrorism, https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/847.pdf#page=6
6 Stephen Schwartz, “Wahhabism and Islam in the United States” (testimony before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, June 26, 2003), https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Schwartz%20Testimony%20062603.pdf
7 U.S. Department of Justice, “Sami Al-Arian Sentenced to 57 Months in Prison for Assisting Terrorist Group” (press release, May 1, 2006), https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2006/May/06_crm_260.html
8 U.S. Department of Justice, “Abdurahman Alamoudi Sentenced to Jail in Terrorism Financing Case” (press release, October 15, 2004), https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2004/October/04_crm_698.htm
9 J. Michael Waller, “Testimony” (Testimony before the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, October 14, 2003), https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/waller_testimony_10_14_03.pdf
10 Patrick Poole, “The Muslim Student Association’s Terror Problem,” PJ Media, August 10, 2010, https://pjmedia.com/patrick-poole/2010/08/20/the-muslim-student-associations-terror-problem-n12923
11 “The Brotherhood has always supported its members in fighting legitimate jihad in their home countries but would never support that activity after it became illegal in the United States. [Redacted] denied that he trained or had interest in explosives. When shown Exhibit 4B, [Redacted] admitted that it was a Brotherhood document that listed him having an interest in explosives, but [Redacted] does not know who wrote it or why.” FD-302 Interview with [Redacted] under Proffer Agreement. See also Ikhwan in America: The Oral History of the Muslim Brotherhood in its own words (Center for Security Policy Press, 2016), pp. 11–12, https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp content/uploads/2016/04/Ikhwan_in_America_20160418.pdf
12 Eli Lake, “U.S. Stopped Blacklisting Domestic Terror Charities Under Obama,” Bloomberg News, May 12, 2016, https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-05-12/u-s-stopped-blacklisting-domestic-terror-charities-under-obama
13 See “1991 Phone Directory,” entered into evidence as Government Exhibit 003-003479, U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development et al.; Attached as Appendix 1 and “1992 Phone Directory,” entered into evidence as Government Exhibit 003-0079, U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development et al. Attached as Appendix 2.
14 See also “By-laws of the International Muslim Brotherhood,” Article 50. Attached as Appendix 3.
15 As Palestine Committee member and CAIR founder Omar Ahmad said, “Registering an organization is easy. I can register 100 organizations in I00 cities in one day… go-ahead start a new organization but you won’t be able to find new faces. Do we have hidden faces we now bring up to light? We have what we have.” From Government Exhibit Philly Meeting 7, U.S. V. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development et al.
16 Kyle Shideler, “Major U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Leader Mohammed Al-Hanooti Dies,” Center for Security Policy, June 5, 2015, https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/major-u-s-muslim-brotherhood-leader-mohammed-al-hanooti-dies
17 Kyle Shideler, “Major U.S. MB Leader Jamal Barzinji Passes Away,” Center for Security Policy, September 28, 2015, https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/major-u-s-mb-leader-jamal-barzinji-passes-away/
18 Kyle Shideler, “Influential Muslim Brotherhood Leader Taha Jabir Al-Alwani Passes Away,” Center for Security Policy, March 8, 2016, https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/influential-muslim-brotherhood-leader-taha-jabir-al-alwani-passes-away/
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Kyle-Shideler.jpg385640Center For Security Policyhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCenter For Security Policy2026-08-06 13:29:362026-08-06 13:29:36The Muslim Brotherhood in America: Center For Security Policy Testifies Before the Senate
The FBI should have been investigating Comey. Instead, it carried on his treason – proof of just how deeply and irretrievably broken the agency had become.
Comey’s was indicted on two federal counts of making false statements and obstructing Congress regarding his 2020 testimony on media leaks. He “willfully and knowingly” lied during a September 30, 2020, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing by stating he never authorized anyone at the FBI to serve as an anonymous source for news reports about sensitive investigations.
Furthermore, he knowingly and willfully made a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon, the President of the United States:
He knowingly and willfully did transmit in interstate and foreign commerce a communication that contained a threat to kill the President, Donald J. Trump
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on Tuesday made it clear during a presser: “You are not allowed to threaten the President of the United States of America.”
As part of its Russia collusion hoax lawfare attacks on President Donald Trump, the FBI opened a “subcomponent investigation” of Crossfire Hurricane, treating Trump as a criminal subject based on already-debunked information linking him to Russia, according to a Trump administration official.
The sub-investigation, known as “Oxferd Comma” was predicated on the idea that Trump, “the newly elected president, was acting as a Russian asset when he fired James Comey on May 9, 2017,” the administration official said. The case was marked as a “‘sensitive investigative matter,’ which was generally to keep it off the books from other agents to be able to see.”
The case was opened despite the fact that “almost everything in the FBI’s possession at that point had debunked or ruled out that Trump or his campaign was colluding with Russia at that time,” the official continued.
The FBI launched the investigation on May 16, 2017, one day before Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel to investigate the Russia collusion as though it were legitimate, despite the fact that the Clinton campaign-funded Steele dossier had already been debunked. Oxferd Comma was then absorbed into the Mueller investigation.
Well prior to May 2017, according to the admin official, FBI Special Agent William Barnett (who worked with Russia hoaxer and disgraced former Special Agent Peter Strzok on Crossfire Hurricane) gave a “lengthy interview” where he said the FBI concluded that there was no evidence of Russia collusion with Trump, or his former advisers Michael Flynn, Carter Page, and George Papadopoulos.
“The FBI is opening a full investigation based on the articulable factual basis that reasonably indicates that President Donald J. Trump may be or has been, wittingly or unwittingly, involved in activities for or on behalf of the Government of the Russian Federation which may constitute violations of federal criminal law or threats to the national security of the United States,” a May 16, 2017, document released by the White House on Wednesday shows. “The goal of the investigation is to determine if President Trump is or was directed, controlled by, and/or coordinated activities with, the Russian Federation in a manner constituting a threat to the national security of the United States and/or a violation of federal criminal statutes. In addition, this investigation will also seek to determine whether President Trump or others yet to be named obstructed and/or conspired to obstruct any associated FBI investigation.”
Documents declassified by the White House Government Transparency Task Force show the investigation – codenamed “Oxferd Comma” – was launched in the immediate aftermath of Comey’s May 9, 2017 firing and was predicated on allegations that the bureau’s own agents had mostly dismissed by that time.
The FBI opened a criminal probe specifically targeting Donald Trump in May 2017, alleging the newly elected president may have been acting as a Russian asset when he fired then-Director James Comey even though the bureau’s own evidence overwhelmingly showed at the time there was no collusion with the Kremlin.
Internal memos newly declassified by the White House show the investigation – codenamed “Oxferd Comma” – was launched in the immediate aftermath of Comey’s May 9, 2017, firing and was predicated on an allegation that previously released memos show the bureau’s own agents had mostly dismissed.
“The FBI is opening a full investigation based on an articulable factual basis that reasonably indicates that President Donald J. Trump may be or has been, wittingly or unwittingly, involved in activities for or on behalf of the Government of the Russian Federation which may constitute violations of federal criminal law or threats to the national security of the United States,” the electronic communication opening the probe on May 16, 2017, stated.
Goal of the investigation was to determine if Trump was directed by or controlled by the Russian Federation
“The goal of the investigation is to determine if President Trump is or was directed by, controlled by, and/or coordinated activities with, the Russian Federation in a manner constituting a threat to the national security of the United States and/or a violation of federal criminal statutes,” it added. “In addition, this investigation will also seek to determine whether President Trump and others yet to be named obstructed and/or conspiracy to obstruct any associated FBI investigation.”
The memo, written by the FBI’s counterintelligence division and approved by then-FBI General Counsel James Baker and then-Assistant Director for Counterintelligence William Priestap, made clear the concerns about Russian influence and obstruction included Comey’s firing, in part because of the public explanations Trump gave for the termination.
“This alternative explanation can be reasonably read to imply that the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation was a factor in President Trump’s decision to terminate Comey,” the memo stated.
Both the Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein were advised that the probe had been launched, the memos show.
The FBI marked the investigation as a “sensitive investigative matter” and declared it was “the least intrusive method to address the serious national security risk posed by the activities alleged.”
But that decision proved anything but nonintrusive: it prompted the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller by Rosenstein and a nearly two-year probe that hampered the start of the Trump presidency even though Mueller’s team, like the FBI before it, was unable to substantiate any collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election.
A subsequent investigation by Special Counsel John Durham – released by the Biden Justice Department in 2023 – concluded there was no basis for the FBI to even open the original Crossfire Hurricane investigation into alleged Trump-Russia collusion.
The newly declassified Oxferd Comma memos show the case was closed on April 9, 2019, a few weeks after Mueller’s probe was sunset with a final report and no charges against Trump.
“The Special Counsel provided the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining his prosecution and declination decisions,” the closing memo noted.
The memos are being released as federal prosecutors in Fort Pierce, Fla., reportedly investigate whether the FBI, DOJ and intelligence agencies engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to violate the civil rights of Trump and his supporters through repeated criminal investigations that lacked evidence of wrongdoing.
It was well known that the FBI wanted to investigate Comey’s firing by Trump as an act of obstruction and that such concerns led to Mueller’s special counsel appointment.
Records would later show Comey was fired on the merits because the DOJ believed he mishandled the Hillary Clinton email investigation, and the department’s own independent inspector general would later conclude that Comey “violated long-standing department practice and protocol” with his conduct in the Clinton case.
The new FBI memos, identified and declassified by the White House Government Transparency Task Force, reveal for the first time that the FBI predicated the obstruction case against Trump – and gave it a codename — on the concern the then-president may have been an asset of Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
But previously released FBI and DOJ records show the notion of Trump being a Russian asset had already been widely dismissed by agents and analysts working for months beforehand on the Crossfire Hurricane case that examined Russia-Trump collusion.
In fact, the lead agent in the Crossfire Hurricane case texted his colleague the same week that Oxferd Comma was opened suggesting he did not believe the allegations were substantiated.
“I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there,” then-Deputy Assistant Director Pete Strzok wrote FBI special counsel Lisa Page on May 19, 2017.
Strzok’s text sentiments were confirmed by another key colleague working on the case, Special Agent William Barnett, who would later tell the Justice Department that by early 2017 the FBI had mostly ruled out that the Trump campaign and its various players like retired Gen. Mike Flynn or advisers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos had colluded with the Kremlin, according to an FBI interview report of Barnett released in 2020.
“BARNETT still did not see any evidence of collusion between the TRUMP Campaign and the Russian Government,” the summary of the agent’s interview revealed.
By the time the FBI tried to portray Trump as under Putin’s grip to justify the opening of the Oxferd Comma investigation, it had also learned that the original allegations of collusion came from Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and were funneled to the FBI in a dossier written by a former British spy named Christopher Steele, who was paid by the Clinton campaign’s law firm, and that the Steele dossier’s contents had mostly been uncorroborated or debunked and were part of a political dirty trick.
The first warning signs of those concerns actually emerged in late summer 2016 when CIA Director John Brennan personally briefed then-President Barack Obama and the FBI that U.S. intelligence had intercepted Clinton’s plan on or about July 26, 2016, to manufacture a scandal alleging Trump was conspiring with Russia to hijack the 2016 election.
“We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED],” Brennan notes of his conversation with Obama stated. “CITE [summarizing] alleged approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.”
The intelligence made clear Clinton’s plan was to “smear” Trump, and it was shared directly with the FBI, including Comey at an Aug. 3, 2016 briefing, according to a classified annex to a DOJ report made public last year. That briefing occurred just four days after the Crossfire Hurricane probe was launched into alleged Russia collusion.
“On August 3, 2016, during a meeting at the White House, CIA Director Brennan briefed President Obama, Vice President Biden, DNI Clapper, FBI Director Comey, and other U.S. officials regarding Russian interference efforts as well as the T1 intelligence received concerning the referenced plan by the Clinton campaign,” the annex noted.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/FBI-SHOCKER.jpg318640The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2026-08-06 06:06:552026-08-06 06:11:15FBI SHOCKER: Bureau Secretly Probed Trump as a Russian Asset for Firing Comey
A strong performance across the Senate race and two House primaries would bolster the left’s argument that its message has potency in a key battleground.
Michigan is ground zero for the Democratic Party’s ideological war.
Its marquee Senate race and two of its House primaries on Tuesday — in Michigan’s 7th and 13th Congressional Districts — will provide another crucial test of whether progressives can not only keep up their winning streak in safe-blue seats but also break through in battlegrounds crucial for control of Congress.
The stakes for the Democratic Party are huge: A strong progressive performance, especially a victory by Abdul El-Sayed in the high-profile Senate race, would significantly bolster the left’s argument that its message resonates widely — setting the stage for a bruising fight over the party’s ideological direction ahead of November.
And any Democrat eyeing a White House bid in 2028 will be watching closely for clues about what kind of message can win in Michigan, the perennial battleground that was recently selected as an early Democratic presidential primary state, giving it outsized influence on the nominating process.
“If Abdul El-Sayed is successful next Tuesday, this will mean the hyper-progressive socialist movement has percolated into one of the most crucial general election states,” said Adrienne Elrod, a longtime Democratic strategist who was senior adviser and spokesperson for former Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign.
“This means Democratic candidates running for president in 2028 will have to be even more mindful of how to approach this sector of the electorate.”
Buoyed by a string of primary victories this spring — in both safe and competitive districts from California to Colorado to Maine — progressives now face a major proving ground as they try and capture a statewide sweep.
Backed by progressive stalwarts like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), El-Sayed faces moderate Rep. Haley Stevens in a bitter and costly feud for the Democratic nomination to take on former Rep. Mike Rogers, the unopposed Republican running for the open seat. The contest to replace retiring Democratic Sen. Gary Peters, is one of a handful of seats Democrats must defend in their longshot bid to take back control of the Senate.
A victory by El-Sayed, who has leaned into his image as a progressive firebrand on social media, could provide a new playbook for Democrats in battlegrounds.
“If El-Sayed wins the primary, there’s no real test case for a hard-edged, base-first, super online candidate succeeding at the state level — at least not in a swing state,” said Democratic strategist Matt McGrath, who was former President Barack Obama’s 2012 Michigan communications director.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/How-Powerful-The-Communists-Really-Are.jpg360640The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2026-08-05 04:09:032026-08-05 04:10:37We’re About To Find Out How Powerful The Communists Really Are
As a progressive socialist-backed candidate faces a moderate Democrat in Tuesday’s primary race for the U.S. Senate seat in Michigan, the outcome could provide insights into the future of the Democratic Party.
Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive candidate endorsed by the far left wing of the Democratic Party, is facing off against centrist and pro-Israel Rep. Haley Stevens for the Democratic nomination.
The outcome of the race, measured in how much support each candidate’s platform could receive from their voters, could decide what direction the party heads in the future.
Recent polling has indicated that El-Sayed, who was once shown neck and neck with Stevens, is now surging in popularity after last week’s debate.
Anti-Israel Party?
Steve Cortes, the founder of the League of American Workers and has done extensive polling in the state on behalf of his organization, told the Daily Signal that El-Sayed, who has been seen gaining momentum among voters, “proves that moderates are not welcome in the Democratic Party in 2026. These are not your parents’ or grandparents’ Democrats.”
“Abdul is a terrorist sympathizer who personifies the extremist move within the Democrat Party toward a toxic union of Islamism and Marxism,” Cortes continued. “That radical alliance is also represented by officials like Ilhan Omar and Zohran Mamdani.”
Earlier this year, the Washington Free Beacon released footage of El-Sayed’s internal communications with his campaign staffers telling them that he would not comment on the death of the former Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei because it could “upset” some voters.
Similarly, Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., an outspoken member of the Congressional Sharia Free America Caucus and the House Freedom Caucus, described El-Sayed as a “jihadist,” “communist,” and “Muslim terrorist,” who has a chance of winning the Democratic primary.
“The Dem party is a Jew hating lunatic party that has lost its way,” Fine continued, adding that El-Sayed might win the primary.
However, Fine remained optimistic about the November general election, where the progressive candidate could face off against Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., which could signal the unwillingness of moderate democrats to throw their support behind a certain ideological wing of the party.
“I don’t think Michiganders are going to vote for a Muslim terrorist to be their senator,” Fine stated.
Some Democratic legislators hold a similar view. On social media, Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., questioned El-Sayed’s views on cutting the foreign aid the United States sends to Israel, after the candidate repeatedly said the United States should spend money at home instead of abroad.
“If Michiganders don’t want their tax dollars sent abroad, will El-Sayed also be ok with cutting off critical American military and humanitarian support for Ukraine, Taiwan, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Kenya, etc.?,” Gottheimer wrote. “Or is this just about Israel?”
Previously, El-Sayed also refused to answer whether Israel should be a Jewish state.
Democratic Socialist Label
El-Sayed has denied being a socialist; however, he campaigns with socialist candidates and is endorsed by various Democratic Socialists of America candidates and chapters. He has also been campaigning on a platform that seems to mirror much of that of the Democratic Socialist of America, such as Medicare for all, abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement and ending the Israeli-American military alliance.
This label has instilled fear among many congressional Democrats and political insiders, who are looking to rebuke the self-proclaimed Democratic socialist from their party.
“Although El-Sayed can win a Democrat primary, his brand of far Left anti-Americanism will not carry a common-sense, moderate battleground state like Michigan,” Cortes added.
On Fox News over the weekend, Gottheimer argued that they are socialists who are trying to take over the Democratic Party, which is “unacceptable” to him.
“They’re trying to use the Democratic Party as a vessel for their ideas,” the congressman said. “Literally, they’re supporting the Communist Manifesto and Trotsky, they’re Anti-American, they’re Anti-Cop, they don’t believe in borders.”
Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., has called self-proclaimed socialist candidates part of the “dirtbag left.”
Platforming Disgraced Men?
If El-Sayed were to triumph on Tuesday, the outcome could outrage Democrats who have stirred concerns over the candidate for campaigning alongside controversial figures like former Maine Democratic Senate Candidate Graham Platner and Turkish-heritage online streamer Hasan Piker, who once said the U.S. “deserved 9/11” and called for the murder of Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla.
Rep. Hillary Scholten, D-Mich., in a CNN interview, said that El-Sayed chose “to campaign with Hasan Piker, who said America deserved Sept. 11. Sure, he went on to disavow those comments, but I’m telling you, nobody on my team would ever, you know, come even close to making a comment like that.”
The congresswoman then added that El-Sayed and former Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner, who had an alleged Nazi tattoo and was repeatedly accused of rape while under the influence of alcohol, “campaigned together.”
Scholten then sounded the alarm on the direction her party is headed by providing a platform to men like El-Sayed and Platner.
“I think that condoning behavior like this from candidates like Abdul El-Sayed is taking us in a direction that we don’t want to go as a party,” Scholten said. “I don’t need $20 million to study why young men stopped voting for the Democratic Party.”
In a different CNN interview, Scholten even accused the progressive of having made “deeply sexist attacks” against his political opponent, adding that “there is a uniquely sexist bent to the things that he has said about women.”
The Democratic congresswoman’s refusal to back such a candidate further marks the divide between the two wings of the party.
El-Sayed did not respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment.
According to the Heritage scorecard, her record is only consistent with 10% of House Democrats.
In the 118th Congress, Stevens voted against the SAVE America Act, a key voter integrity legislation championed by President Donald Trump, against legislation to prohibit the Federal Reserve from creating a centralized digital currency, and against legislation to include a citizenship in the upcoming U.S. Census Bureau.
In the 119th, she introduced articles of impeachment against Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy.
On the campaign trail, Stevens was attacked by El-Sayed for taking in money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC for short, and “big utility” companies such as DTE Energy or Consumers Energy.
Despite the controversy surrounding her campaign funding and Democratic-aligned voting record, her partisan colleagues, such as Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Attorney General Dana Nessel, former Senator Debbie Stabenow, and Senator Gary Peters, have backed her in the race.
Her former primary opponent, state Sen. Haley Stevens, who also took money from AIPAC and shares similar policies, refused to endorse in the race but said she trusts voters to make the right choice.
If she were to win, her partisan politics and support from longtime Democratic politicians could signal the continuation of the party’s status quo.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Rep.-Ayanna-Pressley-speaks-with-Democrat-Senate-candidate-Abdul-El-Sayed.jpg360640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2026-08-04 11:22:582026-08-04 11:27:08Democratic Party Will Take Radical Turn After Michigan Election, Political Insiders Say
Insane. And the only reason these kooks have a voter base is because the Democrat media/academia complex promote, stump and coverup for these destroyers.
Bad Hombre: Let’s take it from the top again.
Here’s the Democrat lineup going into the midterms:
A diagnosed-bipolar Asian chick with a history of self-harm who’s been institutionalized in a psychiatric ward and overdosed on lithium, and wants to get rid of Thanksgiving. Democrat frontrunner for Wisconsin governor Francesca Hong was previously hospitalized in a psychiatric ward and admitted to having a mental breakdown, suffering from mental illness, and cutting herself.
James Talerico, a guy who plays with a Dr. Fauci doll, proclaims his “love for trans kids,” and met his girlfriend at a gay bar.
Troy Jackson who dresses up as a mechanic for fun, married his cousin, and knocked her up twice.
A guy who frequents events where participants get pissed on in a kiddie pool while wearing assless chaps, whose claim to fame is lowering the age of consent for men to have sex with boys as young as 12, decriminalizing knowingly infecting others with AIDS, and supports allowing convicted pedophiles to run for school board.
A Haitian who thinks the United States is a “f*cking disgrace,” wants to abolish borders, law enforcement, and prisons.
A Muslim who believes the U.S. deserved 9/11, is funded by the Muslim Brotherhood, and whose wife and father-in-law have terrorist connections.
Michigan Primary: House Races With Socialists to Watch
New York Times: Brief summaries on some of the races to watch from the New York Times: Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, is term-limited, leaving an open governor’s race in a state that went for Mr. Trump by 16 percentage points in 2024. The contest to replace her is crowded in both primaries without a clear front-runner on either side: Tennessee: Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, is term-limited and unable to run again. The Republican primary will include Senator Marsha Blackburn, who is running less than a year after winning re-election in the Senate.
Seattle Times: In Washington State: U.S. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Washougal, has candidates to her right and left vying for Southwest Washington’s 3rd Congressional District. National Republicans backing state Sen. John Braun have cast her as too blue for a competitive district that has thrice backed Trump; Democrat Brent Hennrich, meanwhile, argues she is not blue enough. In Central Washington, Republican front-runners Amanda McKinney and Jerrod Sessler are competing for an open seat representing the state’s conservative stronghold in Congress — a race that could reveal how deeply Trump-style politics has reshaped the Republican Party.
Additional Primaries Tomorrow: Kansas, Missouri and Washington
New York Times: Brief summaries on some of the races to watch from the New York Times: Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, is term-limited, leaving an open governor’s race in a state that went for Mr. Trump by 16 percentage points in 2024. The contest to replace her is crowded in both primaries without a clear front-runner on either side: Tennessee: Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, is term-limited and unable to run again. The Republican primary will include Senator Marsha Blackburn, who is running less than a year after winning re-election in the Senate.
Seattle Times: In Washington State: U.S. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Washougal, has candidates to her right and left vying for Southwest Washington’s 3rd Congressional District. National Republicans backing state Sen. John Braun have cast her as too blue for a competitive district that has thrice backed Trump; Democrat Brent Hennrich, meanwhile, argues she is not blue enough. In Central Washington, Republican front-runners Amanda McKinney and Jerrod Sessler are competing for an open seat representing the state’s conservative stronghold in Congress — a race that could reveal how deeply Trump-style politics has reshaped the Republican Party.
“Francesca Hong is running for Wisconsin Governor and campaigning with Hasan Piker, who abuses his dog on live streams and states America deserved 9/11.”
Bill Maher told his audience that the Democratic Party is being taken over by communists, and the crowd’s stunned reaction proved his point.
The HBO host used the closing segment of Friday’s “Real Time” to argue that the Democratic Socialists of America have embraced communism openly, according to a clip Maher released on X. Maher said that when President Donald Trump labels the group communist, the description holds up. “Donald Trump has told one trillion lies, but when he says the Democratic Socialists of America are actually communist, that’s not one of them,” Maher said in the clip.
Maher built his case by reading statements from DSA figures and candidates. He pointed to the DSA platform’s borrowing from Karl Marx and noted that New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani once posted Marx’s words directly. Maher also cited a faction called the Marxist Unity Group, which he said now holds sway inside the organization and describes its aim as a classless society, “in a word, communism.”
I’m not voting for anyone who thinks the wrong side won the Cold War or cheers for the Intifada like it’s the World Cup. pic.twitter.com/0iBVs5poXg
The audience went silent when Maher recounted a social media post from Cea Weaver, a top Mamdani aide, urging voters to back communist candidates. “Yes. Good, I’m glad you’re shocked,” Maher said. “People got to realize this is going on.”
Maher framed the shift as a hostile takeover of his own party. “You know what’s being colonized now? The Democratic Party,” he said. He referenced the “Promise to America” pledge, a centrist declaration stating “We are capitalist, not socialist,” and claimed only eight lawmakers signed it. Reporting from Newsweek puts the count higher, at 10 House members plus five candidates, with Reps. Tom Suozzi and Adam Gray leading the effort.
Maher first floated his shifting loyalty during a June exchange with Vice President JD Vance, later expanding on it in an interview with ABC’s Jonathan Karl, The Washington Times reported. Former Florida prosecutor Dave Aronberg warned Fox News that the DSA’s rise could erode Democratic support in November, the outlet reported.
Maher closed by saying he would sooner vote for former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin than any DSA-aligned Democrat, calling her a “bimbo” who could still name something she admires about the country.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Bill-Maher-Draws-Audible-Gasps-From-Audience.jpg344640The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2026-08-03 06:28:362026-08-03 06:32:12Bill Maher Draws Audible Gasps From Audience When He Reads DSA’s Own Words
Congressman Randy Fine: They lecture us about “separation of church and state” while funneling your tax dollars into a Muslim-only DEI commission.
No religious group gets preferential treatment with our money.
Not now. Not ever.
It is a grotesque violation of the civil rights of non-Muslims.
Muslims are the only immigrant group who come to the West with a ready made model of society they believe to be superior to Western law and they work furiously, by all means, to impose it. Under Islam, shariah (Islamic) law supersedes Western law. Anywhere Western law and Shariah law conflict, it is always Western law that must give way. What those of us working in defense of freedom did not expect, was the craven capitulation and cowardice by Western left elites to Islamic supremacy.
Massachusetts lawmakers are taking steps toward using taxpayer dollars to prioritize the hiring of American Muslims for state government positions through a permanent so-called Islamic commission, sparking concerns that the Left is prioritizing a religion that contradicts its own political agenda.
If enacted, Bill S.2134, “An Act promoting the civil rights and inclusion of American Muslims in the commonwealth,” would create a “permanent” commission to help recommend Americans who practice Islam for appointed government positions in the New England state.
The commission, as stated in the bill, would consist of a panel of 11 Muslims appointed by Democrat Gov. Maura Healey and other state officials to represent the Islamic faith on issues such as business, the economy, health care, and other concerns.
The commission will be responsible for executing eight different tasks, which include serving as a liaison between the Muslim American community and the government, researching “Islamophobia,” recommending Muslim Americans for positions in the government, and undertaking “activities designed to enable the commonwealth to realize the full benefit of the skills, talents, and cultural heritage of American Muslims.”
“The commission shall … [e]valuate the commonwealth’s hate crime statutes and whether any amendments would better protect residents from Islamophobia and other similar forms of hatred,” the bill says.
The Muslim commission would influence government recruiting and “identify and recommend qualified American Muslims for appointive positions at all levels of government, including boards and commissions, as the commission considers necessary and appropriate,” according to language in the bill.
Democrat state Sen. Jamie Eldridge, who introduced the bill, said he did so because “Massachusetts has always prided itself on being a leader in equality and civil rights, a legacy this bill builds upon.”
“American Muslims in my district and across the Commonwealth enrich our communities as students, health care workers, educators, small business owners, and civic leaders,” Eldridge added in the press release on the proposal. “This commission will help the state better understand and address the challenges they face, while strengthening inclusion and civic participation.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Stop-the-Islamization-of-Massachusetts.jpg360641The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2026-08-02 14:21:242026-08-04 05:18:59Stop the Islamization of Massachusetts: Democrats Push Permanent Islamic Commission to Install Muslims Across State Government`
For the first time ever, a Presidential cabinet meeting is being broadcast live from Camp David
POTUS Warns: “Spain Today, America Tomorrow” if Border Security Is Reversed.
Speaking during a Cabinet meeting at Camp David, President Trump pointed to the unfolding migrant crisis in Spain’s Ceuta enclave as a warning of what he believes could happen in the United States if Republicans lose control.
“When I watched it, I said, that’s going to be a talking point for the midterms.”
President Trump said Spain’s crisis was driven by “weak law, bad management, but very liberal law,” arguing migrants responded to policy changes by crossing the border in massive numbers.
“If we’re not in office, our country will be invaded at levels that made Spain look small time.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/First-Ever-LIVE-Camp-David-Cabinet-Meeting.jpg349640The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2026-08-01 04:48:312026-08-01 05:40:20Trump Warns, “Spain Today, America Tomorrow” If Border Security Is Reversed at First Ever LIVE Camp David Cabinet Meeting
